December 2005 - Installer-dev

Re: Detect when running under ARD
by Luke Bellandi 12 Dec '05

12 Dec '05

site_archiver(a)lists.apple.com Delivered-To: Installer-dev(a)lists.apple.com Hi Chris, On Dec 12, 2005, at 9:46 AM, Chris Griffin wrote: Best, Luke _______________________________________________ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Installer-dev mailing list (Installer-dev(a)lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/installer-dev/site_archiver%40lists.… Is there a way to know if your package is running locally or remotely from ARD? You might try the remote-desktop(a)lists.apple.com list for this question. I would imagine there's a way to figure this out that could be leveraged from an Installer script. This email sent to site_archiver(a)lists.apple.com

1 0

Detect when running under ARD
by Chris Griffin 12 Dec '05

12 Dec '05

site_archiver(a)lists.apple.com Delivered-To: Installer-dev(a)lists.apple.com Is there a way to know if your package is running locally or remotely from ARD? _______________________________________________ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Installer-dev mailing list (Installer-dev(a)lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/installer-dev/site_archiver%40lists.… This email sent to site_archiver(a)lists.apple.com

1 0

/Library/Receipts (was Re: Universal Binary and Mac OS X 10.2.8)
by Peter Bierman 08 Dec '05

08 Dec '05

site_archiver(a)lists.apple.com Delivered-To: installer-dev(a)lists.apple.com At 8:57 AM +0100 12/8/05, Stéphane Sudre wrote: -pmb _______________________________________________ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Installer-dev mailing list (Installer-dev(a)lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/installer-dev/site_archiver%40lists.… Nice idea. I was thinking about a more radical solution. Deleting the new receipt during the postflight script if this is possible. /Library/Receipts is an implementation detail of the installer, and subject to changes from release to release of Mac OS X. I would strongly discourage all developers from performing any actions within /Library/Receipts. If there is data there that your application needs, please file radar bugs asking that that data be made available explicitly. The format of packages and the contents of /Library/Receipts are very likely to change. This email sent to site_archiver(a)lists.apple.com

1 0

itunes 6 - silent install - windows
by Christian Jackson 08 Dec '05

08 Dec '05

site_archiver(a)lists.apple.com Delivered-To: installer-dev(a)lists.apple.com _______________________________________________ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Installer-dev mailing list (Installer-dev(a)lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/installer-dev/site_archiver%40lists.… This email sent to site_archiver(a)lists.apple.com

1 0

Re: Universal Binary and Mac OS X 10.2.8
by Stéphane Sudre 08 Dec '05

08 Dec '05

site_archiver(a)lists.apple.com Delivered-To: installer-dev(a)lists.apple.com On mercredi, décembre 7, 2005, at 10:32 PM, Rich Kubota wrote: _______________________________________________ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Installer-dev mailing list (Installer-dev(a)lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/installer-dev/site_archiver%40lists.… A full analysis of this problem has not been made, but there's a little known feature with the installer that might be useful in this situation. This solution may not work for everyone, specifically those whose products are constrained to fitting the installation on a space limited media - like CDs. If an InstallationCheck script returns the result (1 << 6), the package will not be installed. By itself, this is no different from any other non-zero result, however, if that package is part of a meta-package installation, then only the specific package is not installed, but the remainder of the installation proceeds. This means that one could design a meta-package installer where there are 2 packages - one with the universal binary version of the bundle, kext, application, etc. and a second with the PPC version only. Each package would have their own InstallationCheck script. The InstallationCheck script for the UB version of the product would check the OS version and return (1 << 6) if OS X 10.2.x or earlier is present. The InstallationCheck script for the PPC-only package would return (1 << 6) if OS X 10.3.x or greater is present. Nice idea. I was thinking about a more radical solution. Deleting the new receipt during the postflight script if this is possible. This email sent to site_archiver(a)lists.apple.com

1 0

Re: Universal Binary and Mac OS X 10.2.8
by Rich Kubota 07 Dec '05

07 Dec '05

site_archiver(a)lists.apple.com Delivered-To: installer-dev(a)lists.apple.com best wishes. Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2005 21:52:19 +0100 From: St?phane Sudre <ssudre2(a)wanadoo.fr> Subject: Re: Universal Binary and Mac OS X 10.2.8 To: installer-dev(a)lists.apple.com Message-ID: <315BBEA9-669A-11DA-B023-003065B01042(a)wanadoo.fr> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed From what I have been able to see on another 10.2.8 computer: - no crashes when you install for the first time (no receipts in /Library/Receipts) - installing the same package a second time => crash. So the problem might be in the code used to diff the receipts and the package. Bug report appended. vendredi 2 dÈcembre 2005, ý 10:36 PM, StÈphane Sudre a Ècrit : What could be the solution when you're seeing this on OS X 10.2.8? *** malloc[740]: Deallocation of a pointer not malloced: 0x2b3f4b0; This could be a double free(), or free() called with the middle of an allocated block; Try setting environment variable MallocHelp to see tools to help debug : for architecture i386 object: //./Applications/xxxxxxxxxxx.app/Contents/MacOS/xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx malformed object (unknown flavor for flavor number 0 in LC_UNIXTHREAD command 15 can't byte swap it) -- Sincerely, Rich Kubota rkubota(a)apple.com (408) 974-6212 _______________________________________________ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Installer-dev mailing list (Installer-dev(a)lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/installer-dev/site_archiver%40lists.… A full analysis of this problem has not been made, but there's a little known feature with the installer that might be useful in this situation. This solution may not work for everyone, specifically those whose products are constrained to fitting the installation on a space limited media - like CDs. If an InstallationCheck script returns the result (1 << 6), the package will not be installed. By itself, this is no different from any other non-zero result, however, if that package is part of a meta-package installation, then only the specific package is not installed, but the remainder of the installation proceeds. This means that one could design a meta-package installer where there are 2 packages - one with the universal binary version of the bundle, kext, application, etc. and a second with the PPC version only. Each package would have their own InstallationCheck script. The InstallationCheck script for the UB version of the product would check the OS version and return (1 << 6) if OS X 10.2.x or earlier is present. The InstallationCheck script for the PPC-only package would return (1 << 6) if OS X 10.3.x or greater is present. This email sent to site_archiver(a)lists.apple.com

1 0

Re: Universal Binary and Mac OS X 10.2.8
by Stéphane Sudre 06 Dec '05

06 Dec '05

site_archiver(a)lists.apple.com Delivered-To: installer-dev(a)lists.apple.com >From what I have been able to see on another 10.2.8 computer: Bug report appended. vendredi 2 décembre 2005, à 10:36 PM, Stéphane Sudre a écrit : What could be the solution when you're seeing this on OS X 10.2.8? _______________________________________________ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Installer-dev mailing list (Installer-dev(a)lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/installer-dev/site_archiver%40lists.… - no crashes when you install for the first time (no receipts in /Library/Receipts) - installing the same package a second time => crash. So the problem might be in the code used to diff the receipts and the package. *** malloc[740]: Deallocation of a pointer not malloced: 0x2b3f4b0; This could be a double free(), or free() called with the middle of an allocated block; Try setting environment variable MallocHelp to see tools to help debug : for architecture i386 object: //./Applications/xxxxxxxxxxx.app/Contents/MacOS/xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx malformed object (unknown flavor for flavor number 0 in LC_UNIXTHREAD command 15 can't byte swap it) This email sent to site_archiver(a)lists.apple.com

1 0

Re: Universal Binary and Mac OS X 10.2.8
by Andy O'Meara 06 Dec '05

06 Dec '05

site_archiver(a)lists.apple.com Delivered-To: installer-dev(a)lists.apple.com Thread-index: AcX6j9pRGOOfG2aDEdqadgAKlaBZUA== Thread-topic: Universal Binary and Mac OS X 10.2.8 User-agent: Microsoft-Entourage/11.2.1.051004 > I have complained about the short lifetimes of the OS numerous times, but > nobody at Apple cares. For Apple it's a $$ thing because they could have > easily kept 10.3 until 10.3.whatever and added Spotlight and such but they > didn't because making 10.4 meant that users would have to pay $$. How many > years has OS X been around? And we've had 10.0, 10.1, 10.2, 10.3, 10.4, and > next year 10.5? This is simply insanity that `10.3 will be end of life next > year. It's one reason why I will always pick Windows over a Mac for an > Enterprise level application. Hardware lasts 3 years on our depreciation > cycle. Should I have to upgrade the server OS even once in that span? These are pros and cons with creating progressive software (and you've described the cons). Every software company ultimately must decide where they fall in the this tradeoff spectrum, and Apple chooses to be progressive end rather than the conservative end. MS chooses the other end of the spectrum (and faces the appropriate tradeoffs). Personally, as both a end-user and a mac os developer, I'd rather deal with the consequences of aggressive additions to the OS every two years and enjoy the end-user features rather than wait 4+ years for a release that only contains conservative changes/improvements (and I would wager most Mac OS users would agree with me). So, sadly, I agree that it's time to retire 10.2 to rest, alongside the other stuff Apple pushed back in the day: Mac OS 10.1, Mac OS Classic, ADB equipment, ADC equipment, OpenDoc, YellowBox, MacTV, and so on. To Apple's credit, look at the early progressive moves that stuck on and really made the world a better place: no floppy drives, USB, a POSIX-based OS that a novice can use and maintain, (relatively) uncompromising HIG, the iPod, ITMS, and the list goes on. Perhaps I'm just saying to take a step back and look at the big picture. Andy _______________________________________________ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Installer-dev mailing list (Installer-dev(a)lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/installer-dev/site_archiver%40lists.… This email sent to site_archiver(a)lists.apple.com

1 0

Re: Universal Binary and Mac OS X 10.2.8
by Peter Bierman 05 Dec '05

05 Dec '05

site_archiver(a)lists.apple.com Delivered-To: installer-dev(a)lists.apple.com On Dec 3, 2005, at 8:01 AM, Stéphane Sudre wrote: -pmb _______________________________________________ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Installer-dev mailing list (Installer-dev(a)lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/installer-dev/site_archiver%40lists.… - if there's a bug in Installer.app on Mac OS X 10.2.8 (and I think there is one because even if there's a problem with the archive, the application shall not be crashing) when dealing with i386 architecture, how are you going to be able to distribute Universal Libraries with support for 10.2.8 on the PPC side? - if there's a bug in Installer.app preventing installing Universal Binaries on 10.2.8, you can't be compatible with 10.2.8 because people may not be able to install your package on 10.2.8. - if there's a bug in Installer.app on 10.2.8, is Apple able to release an update fixing the issue? But 10.2.x is End of Life. ... isn't it? So I would think Apple won't address this. Standard support has been n-1 which means 10.4 and 10.3 should support Universal Binaries and installers that deal with those. For 10.2.x users would have to upgrade their OS. Sound horrible? Well Microsoft does it too, but Microsoft gives you 5 years on an OS where Apple gives you 1 year so Windows 2000 is only going end of life next year when Longhorn / Vista releases. I have complained about the short lifetimes of the OS numerous times, but nobody at Apple cares. For Apple it's a $$ thing because they could have easily kept 10.3 until 10.3.whatever and added Spotlight and such but they didn't because making 10.4 meant that users would have to pay $$. How many years has OS X been around? And we've had 10.0, 10.1, 10.2, 10.3, 10.4, and next year 10.5? This is simply insanity that `10.3 will be end of life next year. It's one reason why I will always pick Windows over a Mac for an Enterprise level application. Hardware lasts 3 years on our depreciation cycle. Should I have to upgrade the server OS even once in that span? With Apple I can get forced to do it twice if my timing is just right.. yey. No one is forcing anyone to upgrade anything. If you buy a Mac with 10.2.0, you get free updates to 10.2.8, and fixes for critical security issues. Your machine will work at least as well as the day you bought it, for as many years as the hardware can manage. If some new software comes out that requires 10.4, you can choose not to use that new software, or you can choose to buy 10.4. Why do you expect to get things of value for free? Presumably you "have" to upgrade to 10.4 because some other software requires it. Did you pay for that other software? Or, for this forum, perhaps you're the author of that new software that requires 10.4. Does your software require 10.4 because of Apple's investment in new technology? Should users get 10.4 (or it's features) for free, but still have to pay for your product? Personally, I would always choose the platform that makes the most advanced technology available to me and my customers as quickly as possible. This email sent to site_archiver(a)lists.apple.com

1 0

Re: Universal Binary and Mac OS X 10.2.8
by Bradley Giesbrecht 04 Dec '05

04 Dec '05

site_archiver(a)lists.apple.com Delivered-To: installer-dev(a)lists.apple.com /brad I have complained about the short lifetimes of the OS numerous times, but nobody at Apple cares. For Apple it's a $$ thing because they could have easily kept 10.3 until 10.3.whatever and added Spotlight and such but they didn't because making 10.4 meant that users would have to pay $$. How many years has OS X been around? And we've had 10.0, 10.1, 10.2, 10.3, 10.4, and next year 10.5? This is simply insanity that `10.3 will be end of life next year. It's one reason why I will always pick Windows over a Mac for an Enterprise level application. Hardware lasts 3 years on our depreciation cycle. Should I have to upgrade the server OS even once in that span? With Apple I can get forced to do it twice if my timing is just right.. yey. _______________________________________________ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Installer-dev mailing list (Installer-dev(a)lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/installer-dev/site_archiver%40lists.… Josh, I'm not saying your wrong, but I do think there are more things to consider. Windows Servers have always required more support man hours for me and that cost should be factored in somewhere. And BSD/Linux has higher configuration costs and that should be factored in as well. Now I know this can get painful when the new OS version doesn't support your hardware but on your duty cycle I don't think that would apply. I personally would like to see Apple focus on improving performance and capabilities rather then maintaining backward compatibilities and I think they have been doing a pretty good job of this. On Dec 3, 2005, at 12:02 PM, installer-dev-request(a)lists.apple.com wrote: -Josh This email sent to site_archiver(a)lists.apple.com

1 0